Palomares v. City of Arvin ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL PALOMARES, Case No. 1:21-cv-01745-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION 13 v. AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER AS MODIFIED 14 CITY OF ARVIN, et al., (Doc. 25) 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 1, 2022, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in this case consistent with the 18 parties’ jointly requested timeline to complete discovery, including provision for eight months to 19 complete fact discovery, nine months to complete expert discovery and ten months to file 20 dispositive motions. (Docs. 16, 17) Among other things, the Scheduling Order sets forth: 21 The dates set in this order are firm and will not be modified absent a showing of good cause even if the request to modify is made by stipulation. Stipulations 22 extending the deadlines contained herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached 23 exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief requested. 24 (Id. at 6) (emphasis in original). 25 On October 25, 2022, the parties filed a Mid-Discovery Status Conference Report in 26 which they represented that they anticipated no impediments to timely completing discovery and 27 were engaged in scheduling depositions. (Doc. 22). As a result, the Court vacated the mid- 28 discovery status hearing. (Doc. 23) 1 Pending before the Court now is the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order for 2 Modifying the Scheduling Order, filed February 10, 2023, in which the parties seek a six-month 3 extension in all discovery, pretrial motion and trial dates. (Doc. 25). The Stipulation was filed 4 without any accompanying affidavit or declaration, contrary to the plain terms of the Scheduling 5 Order (discussed above). In their unsworn representations, counsel represent that the requested 6 extension is warranted because (1) a witness became unavailable recently for her deposition 7 scheduled for January 27, 2023, and (2) “additional[, unspecified] necessary and specific written 8 and deposition discovery is required in order to adequately prepare this matter for trial.” 9 Once entered by the court, a scheduling order “controls the course of the action unless the 10 court modifies it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d). Scheduling orders are intended to alleviate case 11 management problems. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 12 1992). As such, a scheduling order is “the heart of case management.” Koplove v. Ford Motor 13 Co., 795 F.2d 15, 18 (3rd Cir. 1986). A scheduling order is “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly 14 entered, which can be cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.” Johnson, 975 F.2d at 610. 15 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), a case schedule may be modified only for good cause and 16 only with the judge’s consent. If a party is unable to reasonably meet a deadline despite acting 17 diligently, the scheduling order may be modified. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609. If, however, the 18 party “‘was not diligent, the inquiry should end’ and the motion to modify should not be granted.” 19 Zivkovic v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Johnson, 975 F.2d 20 at 609). 21 The parties’ request for a six-month extension of all case management dates is wholly 22 unsupported by the meager, unsworn representations advanced in the stipulation. As for the 23 recent unavailability of a witness to appear for deposition, the parties make no effort to explain 24 why, for instance, the witness’s deposition could not be rescheduled during the month of 25 February while fact discovery under the current schedule is open. As for the unspecified 26 reference in the stipulation that additional written discovery is necessary, that representation is 27 inconsistent with the parties’ joint report filed in advance of the mid-discovery status conference 28 in which they stated no additional written discovery was necessary. The parties make no showing 1 | in their stipulation that they have acted with reasonable diligence to complete discovery within 2 | the specified period. 3 Under the circumstances, the Court grants a two-month extension of all discovery, 4 | pretrial motion and trial dates. 5 Accordingly, based on the parties’ representations in the stipulation and for good cause 6 | shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Scheduling Order be amended as follows: Fuct Discovery Cutoot | March 1.2023 | Mav.2023 9 | [expert Witness Disclosure | March, 2023 | May 12.2008 11 Disclosure 13 | | Dispostive Motion Cusom | April 28,2023, | June 30,2023 15 | | Deadline 16 | | Petal Conference __| August 28.2023 | October 16.2023.1:30 pam, 18 19 Further requests for discovery, motion or trial extensions are strongly discouraged and no 20 | requests for extension will be granted without a showing of diligence by the parties and good 21 || cause. 22 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: February 13, 2023 | br 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28